I buy as much as I can, IMO every BTC under 100 is at discount !
Oh goodie... There's nothing wrong with this statement, from the perspective of a (long-term) optimistic investor. In another thread I advised to sell now and buy back later, like many others have done before me, but I don't sneer at the "I'm buying now, it's at a discount" strategy either. In 2011 (I wasn't around then, but I read the old forum posts) people said the same, and then price dropped another, say, 50%. So from your perspective they were fools to buy at that point, just like they're now, right? Well, you know as well as I do that they weren't. They could have maximized their btc stash had they waiter a bit longer, but in the end, they still bought below 10 USD, and if they had wanted to, could have sold at a 10x ROI. tl;dr The best strategy, IMO, is to sell now and buy back later. But buying right now isn't dumb either, if you're in for the long run and don't lose your sleep over seing the fiat value of your stash erode for a while longer. |
|
|
|
[...]
Buy low, sell high, why is that so complicated? Emotion is a mutha fucker and will destroy your profits, don't be driven by it. Focus on the tangible not your feelings.
Yeah because it is always wise to grap the falling knife... (I don't believe that Bitcoin is falling knife, just speaking in general.) That's not what "buy low, sell high" means. In fact, the two are incompatible. If done right, buy low is precisely not catching a falling knife, but picking it up from the floor. Well, it's all just metaphors anyway. What I really don't get is the "I'll hold, no matter what" stance a lot of people seem to take. Ultimately, it probably runs down to the difference between investors and speculators. The former believe in the product itself, and would somehow consider it treason to sell their entire position, the latter are agnostic about the product itself, and just try to make a profit. I strongly suggest to break down this distinction in your mind. Even if you believe in a bright future for bitcoin, i.e. you have reasons to be an "investor", there is absolutely nothing wrong with going short now, to buy back cheaper later. It's not without risk, but if you keep in mind not to be too greedy and wait too long to buy back, you'll be fine. Because, be honest with yourself: does it really look like the price is going to skyrocket tomorrow? Probably not. Sell now. Buy back later. You'll sleep better, and your total amount of btc will be higher in addition. |
|
|
|
It's as simple as that. Nobody here ever makes a prediction worth a damn.
Really? I'm sure you just have bookmarked the wrong forum members. |
|
|
|
Nice thread. One remark before I add my thoughts on the topic itself: It appears that we currently are not in a bubble, [...]
...would be a conviction that will make you feel pretty lonely here quickly, I'm afraid. I think nearly everyone here agrees that we were in a bubble until April 11, and are now either in a correction trend or a full bubble deflation. Practically, I would suggest to exclude (or treat separately, for learning purposes) the time around June 2011 (the bubble + deflation everyone here recognizes), and the run-up and sharp decline around April 11 2013. Maybe other points as well. I'm in the specification phase of my own trading/analysis system, but not yet programming anything. Here's a number of thoughts I had in the beginning that might apply to your situation as well: * think about what you mean by "parameter". are you starting your search/optimization from the premise that you only use, as an example, some EMAs and, say, their crossovers, and parameters are which time intervals and number of intervals you range over, or is the method (EMA? SMA? regression on particular time intervals?) itself under optimization? * if the latter, the search becomes (exponentially, d'uh) more difficult. so you might need to perform separate searches for separate method/parameter combinations. which then leads to the question if and how you want to combine the results from these separate searches. * finally, the biggest conceptual challenge I'm facing right now is not so much how to train the system to yield the best times for sell/buy signals, but the optimal *volume* of trading. Probably it would help if I knew more about TA or theory of trading, but right now, that's where I have to admit defeat. |
|
|
|
|
I've never[1] identified as either bull or bear. In fact, I entirely avoid thinking in those terms when I perform the analysis that precedes my trading decisions. Practically, I concentrate completely on the short (a day or two) to short/medium term (a week, max), and it's working quite well for me so far. As a result, I have no qualified opinion on whether we're going down to 25, or the deflation/correction stops at 79. Which obviously makes it kind of hard to say whether you're a bull or a bear.
That said, if you would have asked me in, say, late May where I would speculate the 2013 bottom to be, I probably would have responded with a substantially higher value than I would answer with now. That's kind of bearish, I suppose.
[1]"never" is kind of a big word, I've only been around here since, surprise!, April.
|
|
|
|
yes. works now  |
|
|
|
|
Hey. Just wanted to report back and say that your site, in it's current form, is fantastic. Not much more I could think of to improve, expect maybe for the still sometimes hard to read font (then again, I work on a pretty small screen).
One minor bug report, I think: all settings are stored correctly by your cookie other than the "merge multiple exchanges" button. Unless that's on purpose.
Finally, I'll see that I'll get to make a donation as soon as I hold btc again. Well worth it!
|
|
|
|
[...]
I also think it is more likely for a big wall street player to buy MtGox or just to create its own BTC exchange, than Amazon or Google embracing BTC. These two companies like to be "in control" and like to "centralize", thus Bitcoin is kinda a dead end for both, despite of what their CEOs might say publicly.
Probably my mistake in phrasing it ambiguously: those 2 hypothetical events weren't meant to be likely, or even plausible events that are going to drive up the price, but they were meant to illustrate what order of magnitude the event that ends the deflation would need to have, from "world-changing big" (the amazon case), or just "pretty big" (in the Google example). As far as actually possible scenarios go, yours are obviously much better. |
|
|
|
Yesterday we broke the "higher lows" monthly trend with no resistance whatsoever, but still these forums are bloated by bulls in denial. Fear is nowhere to be seen, which is a bad omen for those hoping in a fast deflation followed by a quick recovery. Still long road ahead before despair and final capitulation.
[...]
I'm not really going to disagree with the practical conclusion of your argument -- I think it's very much possible prices will drop another 50%, and then maybe another time. But I do disagree with the rationale behind your argument, the one that you (and many others here) have been posting a number of times. I'll try to explain what I mean... I'm sure there are loads of "bulls in denial". But I don't think they are the major force that keeps the price relatively high ("relatively high" in the sense that you mentioned yourself: that the correction you hope for doesn't happen fast enough). My own explanation is slightly different: I don't believe in the absolute necessity of a "natural" deflation of a bubble, as an event completely independent of external factors. So I think the reason why the correction/deflation is proceeding relatively slowly is not because of bullish delusion (at least not if the word "bullish" is supposed to carry any real meaning, and not just intended to mean "not completely pessimistic about the prospects of bitcoin"), but because of the largest part of investors in bitcoin not being quite sure where we are in the bitcoin adoption event, and as a result taking a "conservative" approach of deflating the former high, but only slowly. Not sure if I made my point very clear, but what I'm saying is: price will continue to go down if nothing happens, simply because the market will take it as a sign that we're still in a very early stage of the adoption event. But I also believe that (a) there is no deep psychological motivation to let the bubble "deflate all the way before we can go up again". If there is a big enough event that signals we are further into the adoption than previously thought, the price will appreciate from whereever we are at the moment. And, (b), that what constitutes a "big enough event" to signal that is rather unclear. Could be that it needs to be of the size of amazon.com switching to btc entirely, could be that it's enough that google play suddenly accepts btc besides USD. |
|
|
|
I sent a SEPA transfer Sun 16th June from a Halifax UK account - still nothing.
Opened a support ticket where they asked for the reference etc. and said they have to 'manually' find it
Never had this problem with past deposits.
Something is not right here. Should I notify my bank and report a 'lost' transaction?
edit/update:
bitstamp support asked me to check the status of my bank transfer
Halifax say the funds were sent and received 2 days ago
So in effect, Bitstamp are saying they have 'lost' my deposit
I reccommend that NOBODY uses Bitstamp again until they stop f***ing people about like this - it is not acceptable to 'lose' a deposit
is there an update to your situation? I've had all my SEPA transfers from and to bitstamp handled correctly, and in due time. On the other hand, that you got nervous after only 3 days tells me you might have slightly unrealistic expectations how fast the transactions are handled on average. anyway, would be interesting to hear if your transfer was credited at some point... |
|
|
|
[...]
I expect this lag in price can be explained by the manner in which liquidity has been impacted on Gox. Once that situation is corrected I don't want to be on the wrong side of that trade. Bears have made the case that USD will flee Gox once withdrawals can be made reliably routine... My expectation is that the opposite will happen. That once confidence about being able to manage liquidity returns, the deposits will come rolling in.
I'm not disagreeing with that part. I'm just sceptical this event will translate automatically into a mid-term trend reversal. |
|
|
|
RTBTC is now live and open for signups! We've launched with Mt. Gox trading and charting support, but adding new exchanges is one of our first priorities. Check it out at https://rtbtc.com/Note: the service is not free, but you can get 15 days of service for less than 0.05 BTC. Looks fantastic. And the pricing algorithm is pretty neat as well :D |
|
|
|
possible bottom is $44 (but in zero sum game it is not possible to sell @ $90 and buy back @ $45 for everyone) :-)
LOL somebody is showing colors. What a hypocrite!  Sharp downtrends consistently seem to bring out the worst in you. You're like an inverse rpietila. |
|
|
|
|
You certainly sound sure for someone who essentially said that he has some (volume-based) evidence that we are close to or slightly below an equilibrium.
How about this:
Let's say -- I'm painting in broad strokes here -- there are two driving forces behind the price: a large group, can I call them "us"?, trying to find a way to predict where the price is going, more accurate and slightly earlier than the others in that group, and a smaller group, "them", doing the same thing as the previous one, while also being able to influence the price development, to a degree, on their own.
So maybe there's a pattern that looks like the price is being held down since late April? May? Or maybe not, and what looks like intent is just reaction. But let's say for a moment it is intent. Then why does this method even work? Perhaps they can lead the price to where they want it to go, but they can only do so if the rest of us complies.
And we do. Sure, there's fantastic news out there. Great prospects on the horizon. it's as disruptive as any technology has been since, I don't know, mechanical printing. But there's still that blank stare (or, only slightly better, that condescending smile) when you tell your family about bitcoin.
And as long as that's still the case, there will be an element of uncertainty in almost everyone who holds or held bitcoin. We have very little evidence to say where exactly we are right now in the world changing event that we believe bitcoin adoption will eventually be.
And because of that, left to our own devices, there is little volume or direction. So we are being lead.
Way too many words to basically say: I think it's useless in the current situation to make predictions that go much further than, say, a week.
|
|
|
|
Unless part of that increase in market cap to no. of transaction ratio is due to bitcoin being used as a store of wealth. I'm not saying that is the reason, but I'm not lazy enough to rule it out purely on whim either. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin economy? Who cares? Bitcoin has its backstop as a medium of exchange because it is popular for certain types of transactions that would otherwise be impractical. It only needs a small backstop. With that, it comes into its own as a store of value. Volatility is more than made up for by massive, consistent yearly gains. It is a superhero store of value, because it is immune to scrutiny and control by third parties, like no other asset out there.
It isn't written in the stars that Bitcoin's first best use will be as a medium of exchange. That is something people have projected onto it due to their preconceptions. The Bitcoin doesn't care. It's its own thing. Network effects and inertia are a huge botteneck to rapid adoption in most types of commerce for now anyway.
It's as if people are stuck in the old paradigm, where the original vexing problem was how to get people to value bitcoins at all. Lazlo and some others solved that problem, then SR and some others provided permanent deep backing - not gigantic but deep enough that "you can always eventually find someone who needs bitcoins."
Let's stop living in the past with the vestigial obsession with commerce driven by the lurking fear that maybe bitcoins aren't really going to be valued. We're past that. More commerce helps, everything helps, but we're past the point where Bitcoin's utility as a store of value was dependent on getting trade for actual goods and services kickstarted.
This dependence mindset needs to die. It is a relic of problems that Bitcoin hasn't had for years. Bitcoin has arrived. It's here to stay, barring major technical catastrophe or obsolescence due to something better (and the latter is no cause for concern, since we'll all have plenty of advance warning because anything new needs time to develop reputation and infrastructure). The actual use of Bitcoin for trade is never going to die out, even if it remains small for a while. It's too useful as a store of value, and that utility will inevitably drive it into more people's hands, driving up the price, stabilizing the price with larger volume, boosting mining incentive to make the system more secure, and increasing development and infrastructural investment in a virtuous cycle. When more people have it and the price is stabler and the infrastructure sounder and the apps more user-friendly, trade will develop naturally.
Commerce will take its turn at prominence when it's ready. For now I see no reason to fret about slow progress on that front given how amazingly successful Bitcoin continues to be as a store of value. It is only natural that these two functionalities will take turns leapfrogging each other in importance over the years as Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency) zigs and zags its way onto the world stage.
It's too bad nobody picked up on this excellent post so far. I don't necessarily think what you say is true, but *if* your assumption is true (that bitcoin doesn't need commerical transactions to be valuable), then that's a powerful argument against the claim that, for example, current btc/USD price is entirely "speculative". And the argument is simple enough: gold hasn't been used for "transactions" in a long time, and has become less and less important as a tool to back up national currencies, but that certainly doesn't prevent it from storing a whole lot of wealth to this very day (the current price decay does not principally change this). We will see... if enough people think bitcoin *needs* commercial transactions to be valuable, then it *will* need commercial transactions to be valuable. If enough people believe bitcoin's value is independent of that, then it'll be that. That's the basic truth of wealth and trading wealth anyway. |
|
|
|
my lord, what an analysis for something that acts completely random
what a waste of work
If it's all random, why are you on this forum? It's by definition impossible to meaningfully discuss completely random processes. |
|
|
|
[...] I was really addressing the "manipulation" of Gox (e.g. - Todays wire news) and nothing against Bitstamp. I use them. What do you feel about Bitstamp using a Slovenian Bank and the recent problems there? I think they got cash from a sale and we are ok for a few months at least, (Note that such a "universal" haircut didn't takeif not longer. I'm on Bitstamp as well, and for obvious reasons I follow the news around the Slovenian banking situation in general and Unicredit Slovenia in particular. From what I gathered so far (from the news, and through comments by an economist I know who's from Slovenia) Unicredit is uniquely positioned in that they are perhaps the only bank, or at least: the biggest bank in Slovenia to not *directly* be part of the banking crisis. Largely due to the fact that they're a subsidiary of the Italian Unicredit, I guess. They way I understand it, unless the banking crisis would lead to some sort of *universal* haircut on all bank accounts, including even those of banks that aren't in trouble, the banking crisis is not going to affect Bitstamp operations. |
|
|
|
yea, thats not hacking. You designed a website. How in the world can you call it hacking?
Who made you Fuhrer of the grammar nazis? He obviously meant "hacking" in the "coding" sense (which he does, unless you don't consider implementing charting and analysis algorithms coding). See point 4. under "hack", Jargon File a.k.a The Hacker's Dictionary: 4. /vt./ To work on something (typically a program). In an immediate sense: "What are you doing?" "I'm hacking TECO." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
